Hmm, I'm not even sure what is actually being proposed in the referenced post. The author keeps pointing out that neither creationism nor evolution are satisfactory answers to life's rich pageant, but (s)he doesn't say what the alternative might be, only pointing to a host of whackjob sites.

Any person who cites, among others, Graham Hancock as a credible source deserves to be roundly mocked, for such a mind is already closed to everything but sensationalism.

The author keeps pointing out that neither creationism nor evolution are satisfactory answers to life's rich pageant, but (s)he doesn't say what the alternative might be, only pointing to a host of whackjob sites.

And that seems to be his way of arguing, the more links the better. It's difficult to go through all of them or to provide counter arguments for it. But it's obvious by the dubious nature of some of those sites, what his arguments are based on. But I don't think many people actually check out the links.

At least pointing to sites keeps the size of posts bearable. There was a poster at www.freethought-forum.com (may still be, but I put him on ignore early on) who posted whackjob posts that were not only wordy but had tens of large graphics in them - if they were articles common web design would split them over 5 pages (and common editorial practice would merge them into one dustbin). Slow to load and meaningless to read.

Why is scepticism generally equated to bitterness, unhappiness, being unfulfilled blah and then some?

Because we stodgy old stick-in-the-mud sceptics insist on dealing as far as possible in boring old stick-in-the-mud facts, while fantasies are just so much more fun, inspiring and fulfilling (or so the woo-woos think). This creates in the woo-woo's mind a stereotype of sceptics as being by their nature always tedious and dull people who dare not have fun, cannot love or marvel or be inspired or fulfilled.